|
Post by Gwangi on Jan 18, 2006 9:18:40 GMT -8
Well, it was said that if Kong was a box-office smash, we would see more giant monster movies. (Kong sequels perhaps, even a notion of another KK vs. Godzilla) While making over $200 million domestically, ordinarily, I wouldn't call it a failure, but then again, expectations were indeed very high and it clearly did not meet them.
That doesn't mean it spells doom for giant monster movies. Perhaps, though, studios will take a second look at creating one. They did cancel that planned Sinbad movie with Kenau Reeves, which may or may not have been a blessing. But giant monster movies have been around since the silent era and more will continue to come.
|
|
|
Post by Giganfan on Feb 15, 2006 10:22:59 GMT -8
Yeah, a 200 million dollar domestic take is phoenomenal, if the film cost 100 million to make. Didn't Jackson's movie cost exactly (or in the vacinity of) 200 million dollars to produce? If that's the case, then it hardly made a substantial profit for Universal. I, for one, would have been whized if it were my movie.
Seriously though, as much as I enjoyed the new Kong film, the reason it stumbled so badly at the box-office is because people have already seen this same story told twice already. I'm actually glad that it didn't do well because it just validates the fact that more "realistic" special effects do not necessarily make a film better, or a story more palatable to modern-day audiences. Most people don't really give a crap about King Kong anyway, so it wasn't like a remake was going to sway their opinions (though it certainly had the potential to).
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Feb 15, 2006 17:52:32 GMT -8
it was not good enough to be that long. Jackson brought nothing new or different to the story, just more more more. the public could see that it was not substantially different than the original and borrowed the worst parts of kino.
perhaps if Anne had died as well, although that's not an original thought either- see GOLIATHON.
the movie's cost was $207 M, and made $213M domestic. it made more overseas, but not as much as Narnia. i've heard, according to Hollywood bookkeeping, a movie has to make 3 times it's cost to be "profitable". Jackson owns a large percent of this movie, i see a lawsuit in the future over it...
|
|
|
Post by RoadWarriorYajuta on Apr 16, 2006 15:25:24 GMT -8
I finally saw this movie and I actually liiked it. I haven't seen the original Kong since I was little and am not as attatched to it as most of you seem to be. I liked it and respect it's place as an all time classic. I did actually appreciate a more realistic looking Ape, kind of lends a little more realism to the movie. Jack Black did way better than I expected him to as he usually annoys the bejeezus outta me. I told a friend I'd like to see a new Kong-Godzilla movie, as long as it isn't GINO. Then again, the T-Rex fight scene will do for me. Not the greatest flick ever, but not a heaping pile of cow dung either. Certainly better than what they did to Godzilla.
|
|
|
Post by Zone Fighter on Apr 17, 2006 8:57:19 GMT -8
I haven't seen the movie (have no intention to) just the commericals. In those the ape looks less realistic than the original.
|
|
|
Post by RoadWarriorYajuta on Apr 17, 2006 9:13:32 GMT -8
That's because you made up your mind to dislike it. Since it isn't the classic you will find no redeemable qualities about it. The Ape most certainly does look more realistic, but since it isn't stop motion it must suck.
|
|
|
Post by Gwangi on Apr 17, 2006 13:24:42 GMT -8
For me, it was never a question of realism or not. Even as a kid, I knew the original Kong was not real, but that didn’t matter. It was his traits, a terrifying and tragic beast that came across for me.
I saw it again with family over Easter. While most liked it, they did complain about it’s length and perhaps it’s over-the-top scenes (the insects at the bottom of the ravine, for instance). Of course, if I were watching it alone, I would have the power to fast-forward. (And I liked the movie, but there were some scenes that tended to drag).
|
|
|
Post by Zone Fighter on Apr 18, 2006 6:40:41 GMT -8
No, it looks like what it is, a computer generated image.
No remake is every equal to the original. Remakes are a sign of lack of creativity.
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Apr 19, 2006 16:12:59 GMT -8
i don't mind books that are turned into movies more than once, or other stuff that can get adapted (such as THE THING), but stuff that starts out as a movie is very difficult to chance for the better.
this version of KONG really brought nothing new to the story, just "better" effects. the thing that turns me off most to this was the excessiveness of the film.
|
|
|
Post by RedKing on Apr 20, 2006 10:12:26 GMT -8
I finally got to see this the other day and on the whole I liked it, but the original KONG is still by far a much greater film, with a greater soul. This Kong had a soul to be sure, and I definitely felt for Kong, but not like i did for the original. This one was like a hyped up adrelanine ride in many spots, but would slam to a halt in others-it definitely needs a good hour chopped out of it! Most of the FX were good, but not nearly as good as I thought they'd be-in the NY scenes when kong's on stage and escapes, the CGI looked very cartoony and unreal, which surprised me. I also didn't like Kong being a realistic giant ape, he didn't seem right somehow-Kong should be an upright humanoid ape, not a strict giant gorilla, but this was still so much better than GINO or the the 76 Kong remake, as the great respect for the original film was evident in nearly every frame. I especially liked the use of the original Max Steiner Kong them for the NY stage show. I was also surprised to see several nods to the 76 Kong as well-particualrly the very end of the film which is nearly a shot for shot recreation of the 76 film with the 2 photographers climbing onto the dead Kong's chest to snap photos and the army and police trying to hold back the crowds.
|
|
|
Post by Shonokin on Nov 16, 2006 9:34:24 GMT -8
mostly this and kino proved that there was no reason to remake KING KONG in the first place.
gotta love people saying "wait until the even LONGER version comes out on DVD, that will explain more things- shouldn't a movie of this length be ABLE to do that the first time?
this is the one that should be the DVD version. To bad your sage advice was ignored. I wonder if in the new super extened DVD, there are extended scenes of when Driscol ominously types S-K-U-L-L I-S-L-A-N-D on his typewriter. Like S cut to flock of birds taking off from a glade K cut to heard of elephants on the plains U long loving view of a clock on the wall L a scene of icebergs crashing in the north atlantic L cut to a scene from Andy Warhol's movie "Empire". Then cut to a scene of Hays giving out a looong sage story about how it's nice to be good and good to be nice. And so on, etc, yadda yadda, blah blah blah and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by amphiboid on Nov 16, 2006 9:52:25 GMT -8
I honestly didn't mind the idea of a remake, I just wanted it to be good, and it didn't float my banana. It was fun going to see it, though.
And I dug Jackson's recreation of the spider pit sequence on the 1933 film's dvd. Pretty squid-tastic!
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Nov 25, 2006 18:56:11 GMT -8
in 1942 Warners released CASABLANCA, which made $3,000,000, which was three times it's budget, and it was considered a "modest success" at the time. and that was way before Hollywood had their skewed system of accounting in place.
i won't ever mind if i don't see this version again. i've heard the even LONGER edition doesn't even add to the kid's story!
|
|